It’s a standard of lousy reporting on climate change: “some say” vs. “some others say,” as if climate deniers have any kind of scientific backing to their position. It’s such a standard, in fact, that John Oliver lampooned it. But it’s not just climate change that gets this treatment. Rewire points to an Associated Press article doing the same thing on abortion. According to a report on a 20-week abortion ban in South Carolina:
Supporters believe a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. Opponents argue such later-term abortions involve wanted pregnancies that go horribly wrong, and politicians should play no role in the difficult decision.
Rewire’s Jodi Jacobson explains why this is climate change-level nonsense:
“Supporters” of 20-week abortion bans (and many other such laws) include groups like Americans United for Life and the National Right to Life Committee (both of which have drafted model legislation for these bans), as well as others such as the Susan B. Anthony List. Each of these groups uses false science and unfounded claims of “fetal pain” to pass legislation that threatens access to critical reproductive health care; the anti-choice movement’s self-important “pro-life” designation elides the fact that women’s health and lives are in grave danger wherever such care is unavailable.
Who are the “opponents” of 20-week abortion bans? These include the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and a range of international bodies such as the World Health Organization and the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. In other words, every relevant, respected, and recognized medical body in the world opposes such bans.
Fake science on the one hand, all the doctors on the other. And to the AP, this is “supporters believe” vs. “opponents argue.” That’s not balanced reporting—it’s trying to avoid having angry anti-abortion activists accuse you of bias because you reported the facts.